The Sumerian Flood Narrative

[Split Rock]

What makes Creationism less of a fallible man-made theory when compared to Evolution?

Basically, the argument is that God "wrote" the bible, and God is infallible, so his book is infallible also. Since creationism is based on the bible, it is also "God's Word" and thus infallible. Problem is, God didn't write the bible.. men wrote it, transcribed it, translated it, and now interpret it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Basically, the argument is that God "wrote" the bible, and God is infallible, so his book is infallible also. Since creationism is based on the bible, it is also "God's Word" and thus infallible. Problem is, God didn't write the bible.. men wrote it, transcribed it, translated it, and now interpret it.

Do you interpret the phone book infallibly? someone's diary? photo album? the newspaper?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

What makes Creationism less of a fallible man-made theory when compared to Evolution?

Facts, for starters.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Do you interpret the phone book infallibly? someone's diary? photo album? the newspaper?

Yes, sometimes, yes, and occasionally.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Jamin4422 What makes Creationism less of a fallible man-made theory when compared to Evolution?

Facts, for starters.

That is all Joe Friday wanted

 

[Split Rock]

Do you interpret the phone book infallibly? someone's diary? photo album? the newspaper?

None of these things you mentioned are infallible. Did I not already post that "All human endeavours are fallible?"

 

[AV1611VET]

None of these things you mentioned are infallible.

I didn't say they were.

 

[Jamin4422]

I agree. The KJV says: "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground,"

By the time monsanto gets done God will have to purify the earth again. Only this time He will use fire, not water. The drought on corn, wheat and soy is a sign of things to come.

 

[Doveaman]

I thought I discussed the issue of miracles with you recently. While I may not subscribe to them, I don't have a real issue with them because of the fact they are isolated events.

You mean like, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

Or like, "The waters rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."?

One might expect those events were miraculous, otherwise you might have found evidence of them by now?

1. Because they do not contradict reality.

Which reality, yours or ours?

2. Because I believe that is the way the scriptures (at least GEN) were intended to be read.

That's because your belief is based on your fallible interpretation of GEN.

Any interpretation that conflicts with the reality that we have determined via our species' combined scientific inquiry bothers me.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths." (Prov 3:5-6).

Scientific inquiry by your fallible species can take a hike.

 

[Split Rock]

Do you interpret the phone book infallibly? someone's diary? photo album? the newspaper?

None of these things you mentioned are infallible. Did I not already post that "All human endeavours are fallible?"

I didn't say they were.

I think I misread your post. No, I do not do anything infallibly either.

 

[Doveaman]

23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out;

Unless of course you contend plants aren't really alive.

I contend your interpretation is based on cherry-picking.

 

[Split Rock]

You mean like, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

Or like, "The waters rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."?

One might expect those events were miraculous, otherwise you might have found evidence of them by now?

Why would a miracle NOT leave evidence behind? If it is a miracle that should have left evidence and did not, then it logically (opps ugly word!) did not happen. What evidence would you expect to be left behind that Jesus walked on water? None.

Which reality, yours or ours?

There is only one reality. You would rather live in a Fantasy Land. That's fine, just don't try to sell it to us.

That's because your belief is based on your fallible interpretation of GEN.

I freely admit my opinion about how GEN should be interpreted could be wrong. You have already stated in the past that yours CANNOT be wrong.

Scientific inquiry by your fallible species can take a hike.

So can your fallible interpretation of scripture... yeah, we're even now!

 

[Doveaman]

I agree. The KJV says: "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground,"

Then Genesis 8:11 says: "And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth."

Talk about literal interpretation!

 

[Doveaman]

Basically, the argument is that God "wrote" the bible, and God is infallible, so his book is infallible also.

Correct.

Since creationism is based on the bible, it is also "God's Word" and thus infallible.

Is this the kind of logic you apply to science?

Since the Big Bang is based on observations, it is also an observation and thus a fact, is that it?

Problem is, God didn't write the bible.. men wrote it, transcribed it, translated it, and now interpret it.

That's like saying Split Rock didn't type your posts, the keyboard did it.

 

[RickG]

Talk about literal interpretation!

Gen. 7:23 says all living substance was destroyed from the face of the earth except that which was on the Ark. How is it supposed to be taken?

Gen. 8:11 says a dove brought an olive leaf to Noah. Where did that life come from?

 

[Doveaman]

Why would a miracle NOT leave evidence behind?

The flood miracle achieved its purpose. That's all that mattered.

God was not trying to impress scientists by leaving evidence lying around for them to pick at.

If it is a miracle that should have left evidence and did not, then it logically (opps ugly word!) did not happen.

Well then it was a miracle that should not have left evidence and did not.

The purpose of the flood miracle was to cleanse the earth of human pollution, not leave evidence behind for scientists to pick at.

Even the dirty flood waters had to be purified afterwards.

What evidence would you expect to be left behind that Jesus walked on water? None.

Exactly. No evidence.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The flood miracle achieved its purpose. That's all that mattered.

God was not trying to impress scientists by leaving evidence lying around for them to pick at.
Well then it was a miracle that should not have left evidence and did not.

The purpose of the flood miracle was to cleanse the earth of human pollution, not leave evidence behind for scientists to pick at.

Even the dirty flood waters had to be purified afterwards.
Exactly. No evidence.

So if there is no evidence to support a worldwide flood, why believe it?

 

[RickG]

Exactly. No evidence.

Quite the contrary, there is much evidence, and this evidence is contrary to a global flood.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Doveaman The flood miracle achieved its purpose. That's all that mattered.

What about the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus

NKJV) Exodus 15:1 Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the LORD, and spoke, saying: "I will sing to the LORD, For He has triumphed gloriously! The horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea!
2 The LORD [is] my strength and song, And He has become my salvation; He [is] my God, and I will praise Him; My father's God, and I will exalt Him.

NKJV) Revelation 15:3 They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying: "Great and marvelous [are] Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true [are] Your ways, O King of the saints!"

 

[AV1611VET]

Gen. 7:23 says all living substance was destroyed from the face of the earth except that which was on the Ark. How is it supposed to be taken?

Gen. 8:11 says a dove brought an olive leaf to Noah. Where did that life come from?

I thought I explained that?